I would bloody hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
I would bloody hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quite a decent overview of the whole mess from Macwhirter:
Gender wars: the Union’s new battle line | The Spectator
Kemi Badenoch fails to respond to the request to attend the equalities committee at Holyrood.
That's subjective. It's your personal opinion that it's a bad law. It doesn't however change the fact that a devolved parliament consisting of MSPs put in place by the Scottish electorate gave this bill cross party support. A bill that falls within the powers of devolution. Because had it not fallen within the powers of devolution, the UK Government would have enacted section 33, not section 35.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
They've effectively halted a bill that they simply don't agree with. Not because of any constitutional implications. Of course, by using section 35, they've created a constitutional implication themselves.
I've not seen anyone make that point before, but that's not to say they haven't. It just seems the line of attack from supporters of the bill is that Westminster have got involved rather than acknowledge there are legitimate questions to be asked of its efficacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
The most recent Holyrood legislation I can recall which caused similar levels of outcry was the named person scheme, which IIRC also ended up being ruled on outwith Scotland (by the Supreme Court) before ultimately being abandoned.
On the flipside, one piece of SG legislation which I fully supported (the offensive behaviour at football act) was overturned from within Holyrood. I still find that a baffling move when you see what continues to be glossed over in Scottish football.
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/sta...LINp5giIw&s=19
An example of why I think extremists have hijacked the trans right movement. Not a great look for the SNP/Greens to be side by side with these people.
These people? It's a couple of people holding up signs they shouldn't be amongst a crowd of hundreds of people. Bit of a desperate stretch to say that the SNP and Greens are "side by side" with them. Not quite the same as the tories warming up to the Orange Order.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
These people? Yes, extremists holding up signs in a busy city centre saying they want to brutally murder women. That's not normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/st...OBthNdu5A&s=19
Joanna Cherry due in court soon to give evidence against someone who threatened to kill her.
Terf is such a daft, unpleasant term.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
What's 'radical' about not agreeing transwomen are women?
It's a gift to the Sunday papers' picture editorsQuote:
Originally Posted by James310
Row erupts as SNP MPs appear near violent sign at Glasgow protest | The National
SNP politicians blasted after standing with group holding 'decapitate TERFS' sign at trans protest - Scottish Daily Express
It was really stupid to post the video with this in the background. I don't for a second think the MPs and MSPs support it, but they put themselves in the position.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
The term itself goes back about 15 years. Its original meaning was to distinguish between those radical feminists who accept that trans women are women, and those who don't. Inclusive vs excluding.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Now, of course, it's a pejorative. A softer term would be "Gender-critical", which of course can include all genders.
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...Qz12I8PzPRChpAQuote:
Originally Posted by James310
Her original tweet has over 3.5M views.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...HGrsT2t0w&s=19
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...licting-rights
Good piece underlining the hypocrisy of the SG insisting the bill was a mere administrative tweak then going to court to argue it has a profound influence of people's legal rights.
It's an opinion piece that does nothing to explain why the UK Government used Section 35 instead of Section 33. Although, we all know why.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Yes, I get that. But radical feminism ideology goes back much further, to a time when the radicalism was grounded, for the most part, in a very real (and ongoing) battle against women's oppression, not against those who wish to eradicate biological fact. That those women (and these days it includes any woman, not just those with strong feminist views) who make the undeniable point that a man cannot experience the lived reality of a woman are deemed the bad guys is just plain daft. If anyone merits a derogatory slur, it's the faction who choose to live in the world of make believe and insist that anyone who does not deserves scorn (or indeed 'decapitation').Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
One of Rowling's original tweets (in support of Maya Forstater) which has ever since seen her unjustly demonised, perfectly sums up the absurdity of where we're at:
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...BtayNykIYmQQDQ
She explains why they were 'correct to trigger section 35'.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Trans rights was literally on 3 programmes in a row this morning, the presenter on Sunday Morning Live saying the topic has been the most commented on he has ever seen.
Yet some still say the general public don't care.
This is what she says: "The rights at stake – protections for women and girls that remain a Westminster matter – mean the government was correct to trigger section 35. It remains to be seen if the courts find it meets the legal test."Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Guess what? It doesn't. Because if it could meet the legal test, they would have triggered section 33 instead.
Second former Supreme Court judge explains why the veto is correct (from the Sunday Times):THE UK government’s veto of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has provoked predictable outrage from Bute House. The first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has called it a “full frontal attack” on Scottish democracy. She threatens a challenge in the courts.
This is a fight with Westminster that Sturgeon won't win
by Jonathan Sumption
Three streets away in Edinburgh’s New Town, Lord Hope of Craighead, a distinguished Scottish lawyer and former deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, is scathing. Her litigation, he says, will be a hopeless waste of public money. What is going on?
The Edinburgh parliament is a subordinate legislature. It owes its existence and powers entirely to the Scotland Act 1998, an act of the UK parliament. The scheme of the Scotland Act is perfectly rational. It devolves to Scotland everything of exclusive concern to Scotland, while reserving to Westminster a long list of “reserved matters” that concern the whole of the United Kingdom.
Section 35 of the act is part of this scheme. It empowers the UK government to stop a Scottish bill from becoming law, but only if the bill deals with matters reserved to Westminster in a way that adversely affects how the law works.One of these reserved matters is equal opportunities.
What mainly concerns the UK government is that the new bill will create a special regime for recognising gender reassignment in Scotland. Trans people will be able to self-identify without satisfying the clinical tests that apply in the rest of the UK and the minimum age will be reduced from 18 to 16. This is achieved by modifying the operation in Scotland of two Westminster statutes, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, both of which apply throughout the UK.
The changes will not apply in the rest of the UK, but that is heart of the problem. If the bill becomes law, some UK citizens will have a different legal gender in different parts of the UK, depending on where they happen to be.
This poses serious legal and practical problems for employers and public authorities operating on a UK-wide basis. They will have to discriminate between trans people in Scotland and the rest of the UK on such matters as equal pay, gender discrimination, tax, benefits and pensions, all of which are subject to UK-wide statutory regimes.
These are powerful points. It is not clear what the Scottish ministers’ answer is. Unless they can think of one, their judicial review will fail. But all that we have heard from them so far is froth and rage.
The suggestion that the UK government’s veto is an attack on Scottish democracy is absurd. The matters reserved to Westminster by the Scotland Act concern the whole of the UK. Only Westminster can legitimately speak for the whole of the UK, and Scotland is fully represented there by 59 MPs. They don’t always get their way, but that is democracy for you.
The Scottish parliament represents less than a tenth of the people of the UK. It would be wholly undemocratic for the Scottish tail to be allowed to wag the UK dog on issues such as these.
Scotland has a remarkably generous devolution settlement. Almost everything which really matters to Scots is devolved. This ought to mean that there are few occasions for conflict with Westminster.
But for some years Scottish ministers have been promoting bills in Edinburgh designed to throw grit into the working of the Union in the few areas where there is scope for disagreement. The strategy is to nibble away at the matters reserved to Westminster in order to provoke constitutional rows, which they hope will boost support for independence.
Hence the constant yelling about assaults on Scottish democracy whenever the Scottish parliament comes up against the limits of its powers and the legitimate interests of the UK as a whole.
On this occasion, however, Sturgeon’s famous political skills may have deserted her. The signs are that her Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is alienating some of her natural supporters north of the border. When opportunities to pick a quarrel with Westminster are so few, it is more important than ever to choose the right ones.
Lord Sumption is a former Justice of the Supreme Court
That's your opinion. There's a lot of legal opinion that says it meets both legal tests. I suspect there was a lot of discussion as to which section to trigger. My guess it was a mix of legal view and political opportunism. From my (admittedly limited) understanding, SG's judicial review will have to demonstrate that UKG acted unreasonably. I think that's a pretty high bar. It's a power play by both governments. What a shame it's come to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Problem is, if the court doesn't rule that the UK Government acted unreasonably, they can effectively use Section 35 to reverse any other devolved legislation in the future, claiming that it "impacts equality" in some way. Section 35 is purposefully vague, which can make it the ultimate power grab.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Why haven't they done that in the past then? I mean this clause has been there since the Scottish Parliament was created. Times used before? 0.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
When the Scotland Act was debated, the thinking was that there would be cooperative engagement to enhance legislation and ensure that all govermental interests were considered. Unfortunately that's not where we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Indeed. SG thinking seems to be that this legislated for safeguard should never actually be used, even when the case for it is strong.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
They haven't been this desperate to roll back devolution before.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
That doesn't really add up, the picture you paint is a desperate Tory government doing all they can to stop the SNP and put the Scots in their place. The reality is the for the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament there is a valid concern that the legislation impacts UK law, and despite giving the Scottish Government plenty of warnings about this Bill they ignored it and now this is the consequence.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
But aren't you against devolution? You want to abolish it?
If it impacted UK law, the UK Government would have used Section 33, that's what it's for. How many times does it need to be pointed out?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Section 35 allows the UK Government to interpret devolved legislation as they see fit, then block it on that basis. The Secretary of State only has to pretend to "believe" that it has an impact on reserved matters, to serve as justification for enacting the order.
This would have alarm bells ringing in any real democracy.
And you have ex Supreme Court judges saying you are wrong and a S35 was correct. Just repeating your own opinion doesn't make it fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
You had one ex-supreme court judge come out and say it was correct, without detailing why they thought it was correct. An ex-judge is under no obligation of impartiality.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Lord Sumption is the second ex-Supreme Court Judge to back the move in the last few days. Lord Hope being the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
They may no longer be bound by impartiality but I'd suggest they're well qualified to give an opinion.
They may be qualified to give an opinion, but they're always going to give the opinion that resonates with their own personal views, hence why it's called an "opinion" and not a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
How do you know they are always going to do this? And how can you claim to know what their personal views are?Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Why wouldn't they, as exceptionally experienced members of the legal profession, not be giving a legal opinion?
You do wonder what it is that make Lords stick up for the establishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
IIRC the Supreme Court twice ruled against the government in the not too distant past when it came to the triggering of Article 50 plus the proroguing of Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Hmm, Lord Sumption. That name rings a bell. Or is it an alarm?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sumption has been described as "conservative neo-liberal and libertarian."
On 17 January 2021, Sumption appeared on The Big Questions to discuss the question of whether the lockdown was "punishing too many for the greater good", and said (with reference to the medical concept of quality-adjusted life years) that "I don’t accept that all lives are of equal value. My children’s and my grandchildren’s life is worth much more than mine because they’ve got a lot more of it ahead". When a cancer patient taking part in the debate said that he was saying that her life was "not valuable", Sumption interrupted her, saying: "I didn’t say your life was not valuable, I said it was less valuable."
Just the sort of guy whose opinion I'd not value.
We'll all of this is just noise. You'll just have to wait until the JR.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
For me that just explains why England needs to follow Scotlands lead.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Like Johnson during COVID.
Also explains why Scotland NEEDS independence.
J
I saw Wings Over Scotland trending on Twitter and thought what's he done now. Yikes! No links as I know it upsets people but backs up the point a few have made that trans extremists have hijacked this and taken the Scottish Government with them.
Wasn't me that brought Sumption into the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I saw this and decided not to post links. It's an evisceration of some of the key players. Not a comfortable read. He better be right in what he is asserting.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Incidentally, I saw someone posted a twitter screenshot of Wings responding to a "You Yes Yet?" the other day with, "No", so I think we can officially say he's jumped the dyke to the supporters of the Union side. Best of luck with your new recruit. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
He doesn't get a vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I don't understand the point. Are you saying what he has posted isn't true? My sense is that his issue is with a section of the yes movement rather than independence per se.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Has a small cadre of, possibly criminal, trans activists hijacked the Scottish Govt?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I don't think that is true, no.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I don't know, I haven't read it. Having read his stuff about Hillsborough and his Kezia Dugdale fixation, I think he's a bit unhinged tbh. I know he's absolutely obsessed with gender stuff, has been for a few years, is ferociously anti-SNP/Greens and reserves particular poison for Nicola Sturgeon. He is now being embraced by a section of opportunistic anti-Indy people.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Get your longest spoons out would be my advice.
Have you read the article? TBF he points the finger at politicos from parties other than Greens/SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Sadly I read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Has a small cadre of militant trans people hijacked the Scottish Govt?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
It's a rough read, which is why I didn't link it. It's also not something for a football site with a mixed age readership. My reading of it wasn't a general hijacking, but that a small group appeared to have a disproportionate influence in pushing the legislation. The underlying tone was why this issue in particular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Scrolling up from the bottom of the page I didn't know who was being discussed, then I read this post and though 'ah that'll be Wings Over Scotland'.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
The guy is a deranged, angry, little man imo.
He's a bigot claiming the government of Scotland has "surrendered" to a bunch of people he claims are bigots and criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Rather than give him any import my advise is to treat him like any other bigot.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Just out of interest, in what way is he a bigot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Badenoch confirms she's not going to bother coming up to the Scottish Parliament to discuss what's wrong with the bill.
They even offered for her to do it virtually.
Feel the love.
Labour, both at Holyrood and Westminster, seem to be caught in a kind of no-man's land (biological or otherwise) on this issue. Starmer has tied himself in knots, while Sarwar, despite whipping his MSPs to vote in favour of the bill is now calling on the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to step in and resolve 'concerns over its impact on single sex spaces'. Why vote for a bill you had such concerns about?
Gender law impasse can be broken - Sarwar - BBC News
He had a long-running defamation battle with Kezia Dugdale who accused him of being homophobic. IIRC the court rejected the homophobia accusations but awarded damages to Dugdale, though I can't remember the full details.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
You're right about his latest post being an uncomfortable read and I can't claim to have read it all. I found it all a bit bewildering.
He was spot-on, though, about the furore the SG bill would spark, pointing out its inherent problems several years ago.
Letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government to the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and Section 35 order.
Dear Alister
I have noted your letter received on the evening of 16 January, informing us of your intention to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 which you then tabled on 17 January.
As the First Minister has set out, we consider that this unprecedented intervention represents an attack on the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and its ability to make decisions on devolved matters. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, which passed the Bill last month by an overwhelming majority of MSPs with support from members of all five parties.
Your letter provided scant detail on the reasons for the order, and like everyone else we had to wait until publication late on Tuesday afternoon of your policy statement to see any substantive explanation. We will respond in full to the points raised in the appropriate forum which, given the approach taken by the UK Government, is now likely to be through the courts.
My immediate concern, however, is to clarify contradictions in your letter and statement.
You have said that you hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward which respects devolution and the operation of UK legislation. This seems utterly incompatible with your approach of waiting until after the Bill has been passed to implement a power of veto never used before, with no warning communicated about the use of that power or prior attempt to engage on the detailed issues now raised. Please would you clarify how the Scottish Government can work constructively with you under these circumstances.
It is disappointing that you have refused the invitation to appear at the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee to explain your decision. This does not seem consistent with your stated aim to do all you can to respect the devolution settlement.
You have said that you are open to consideration of an amended Bill, yet the reasoning you have set out includes a fundamental objection to the existence of two different systems within the UK.
This is in direct contradiction of the position set out in the UK Government’s 2018 consultation on gender recognition reform, which stated:
“Gender recognition is devolved to Scotland. That means Scotland can have its own system for gender recognition if it wants to. Some areas dealt with by the GRA are not devolved, however, such as pension and benefit entitlements. The Scottish Government consultation clearly sets out what is and is not devolved with respect to its proposals and where, in the future, they might have to work with the UK Government.
“The UK Government is committed to working closely with the Scottish Government on its proposals, especially on the implementation of its proposals where powers are not devolved, mutual recognition of certificates issued in different parts of the UK across the UK (this would include those issued under the current system and those issued in the future), residency requirements that applicants might need to meet and the implications of any difference in legal rights conferred by the issuing of a GRC in Scotland as opposed to England and Wales.”
If it is now the UK Government’s position that the existence of two different gender recognition systems within the UK is unacceptable, please clarify what an amended Bill could possibly include, and how this position can be consistent with the recognition both by your Government and by the Equalites and Human Rights Commission that gender recognition is a devolved matter.
I will also note that the positions of the UK and Scottish Governments were broadly consistent, with each proposing similar reforms, until September 2020 when the UK Government announced it would not take forward the proposed reforms set out in its 2018 consultation, despite 64% of respondents agreeing that the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria should be removed. That was the point when it became clear that there would likely be different approaches within the UK – over two years ago.
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has been years in the making, has involved input from tens of thousands of organisations and individuals through public consultation, extensive evidence-taking and consideration by the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and significant joint working from MSPs of all parties.
The UK Government has had countless opportunities to engage, express views, or request changes since we set out our intention to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in our Programme for Government of September 2016.
This included the two Scottish Government consultations that closed in March 2018 and March 2020, the Scottish Parliament call for views that closed in May 2022, and the Equalities Committee’s detailed consideration of the Bill from March to October 2022.
Officials in the Scottish and and UK Governments have had ongoing and regular cordial discussions on cross-border interaction of the Bill.
There has also been Ministerial engagement on the Bill. I wrote to then Equalities Minister Nadhim Zahawi in October 2022 highlighting relevant policy decisions for the UK Government and committing to work together on an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act, which is the usual process for handling cross-border issues or implications for reserved law.
Kemi Badenoch’s letter of 7 December to me was in response to that letter, two months later. I believe in comments you made during your statement in the House of Commons you may have given the impression that Ms Badenoch initiated this correspondence but that was not the case.
Following that correspondence I met with Ms Badenoch on 19 December. Both Ms Badenoch and I committed to working together constructively, including ongoing official level meetings.
In none of the above opportunities for engagement or actual discussions has the UK Government given any indication it would consider using any powers, let alone a Section 35 power to effectively veto the bill, or that it had issues that could possibly warrant doing so.
The UK Government has only raised concerns about two specific issues with the Bill, both of which were quickly resolved. The first was provision relating to asylum seekers added at Stage 2 by an MSP and which the Scottish Government was clear it did not support. The competence of this amendment was queried by the Office of the Advocate General, and it was removed by a Scottish Government amendment at Stage 3. The second was an issue raised by Ms Badenoch on the morning of 22 December, during the Stage 3 process, in relation to remarks made on the evening of 21 December during the Stage 3 debate. This was resolved the same day through clarification that the existing GRC process will continue to be open to those in Scotland.
Using the Section 35 power to impose a veto on the Bill when already passed by the Scottish Parliament, after ignoring every opportunity to raise these issues or seek changes to the Bill over several years, demonstrates complete disregard for devolution, and flies in the face of the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding between our Governments which states that these powers should be seen “very much as a matter of last resort”.
I therefore ask that if you really want to work together in a partnership of equals, then you should acknowledge that your use of Section 35 in this way is completely incompatible with such a partnership, and you should immediately revoke the order. That would enable constructive discussions about the issues you have raised.
I am of course happy to meet with you to discuss any of these issues as soon as possible, as I would have been at any point throughout the Bill process.
Shona Robison
If it's going to court is it appropriate for live discussion about it? Generally we here that if it's a live court case politicans and the public in general won't comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
It's not at court is it.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
This is in the public domain.
#Pepperami
It's going to court though, the Scottish Government has asked for a judicial review. Will likely end up in Supreme Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
What's the pepperami reference?
The Letter gives clear time line of events which might be too spicy for you. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
The problem with the GRRB is that it makes being a woman an identity category rather than the reality of biological sex, it actively encourages predatory men to identify as women to gain entry to women only spaces. The GRRB would make the process of changing gender easier and quicker by removing the need for applicants to have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and reducing the time adults are expected to have lived as their acquired gender from two years to three months. The new law would also have lowered the age at which people can apply to change their gender from 18 to 16.
Sunak was right to use the powers enshrined in Section 35 of the Scotland Act, to stop the GRRB, because it would not only be women and children in Scotland who would have been impacted by the new law. There would have been nothing to stop a man moving from England to Scotland for three months, gaining a GRC before heading back down South to live as a woman and access woman only spaces.
Incidentally Starmer might pretend he doesn't know what a woman is, and look terrified when asked if a woman can have a *****, a question any moderately intelligent 6 year old could answer, but if he was in power, the reality of governing would have meant that he would also have used the same powers to stop the GRRB as a safe guarding measure to protect women and children, just as Sunak did.
Here is an example of why the make believe policy of saying 'I identify as' being taken serious over the reality of biological sex is a danger to women and children. Stephen Mallon was jail for raping five women. However Stephen Mallon has now changed his name to Charlene, and boasts that he will be in a woman only prison in three months time.
This is not to say that trans people are predators, it's saying that a small number of men are predators and that safe guarding measures have to be put in place for the protection of women and children. Society has to be have a sex category that is based on the reality of biological sex not the make believe 'I identify as', where any Tom, Dick or Harry can walk into the ladies shower room by simply identifying as something they are not.
http://reduxx.info/scotland-serial-r...g-name-change/
Also from the article you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Ten years later, Mallon is eager to be around women once again, inside sources told The Sun. One fellow inmate reportedly said Mallon has “…been saying to people he has changed his name by deed poll and is going to the women’s hall in three months. But I don’t think he is. I don’t know how they can put a sex offender who rapes women into a women’s hall. I’m sure prison bosses will see through it.”
This idiot plus Maggie Chapman before her, some event
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/poli...-to-auschwitz/
Dundee SNP councillor slammed after comparing gender reform battle to ‘Auschwitz
I think it's a mix of:Quote:
Originally Posted by rona8ldo7
- don't do it on legal advice ( coupled with a realistic assessment that SG don't want to 'fix' the Bill)
- power play
- reciprocating for FM declining to attend Westminster
- not giving SG anything to divert attention from what they are going through.
This has been the case for years. The new Gender Reform bill isn't making this possible now, it already was.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Tory Andrew Bridgen got roundly criticised when he made a link between the holocaust and vaccines. I think even the PM waded in and said how unacceptable it was. Surprisingly not a peep from the leadership of the SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
They're likely struggling to keep up with it all. Before you even get a chance to criticise the tories on something, there's already something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Prison bosses have previous for housing prisoners along the make believe 'I identify as' line rather than the reality of biological sex. Look at Stephen Wood who was jailed for a string of offences against woman and children, he had raped one woman who was in her 20's 5 or 6 times, the second woman he raped was two months pregnant, however after a name change to Karen White was transferred to the women only wakefield prison and went on to rape two women there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ailed-for-life
I see this happened over 4 years ago under the current system in England. Did the person have a GRC?Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
It says in the article they had started transitioning, so no. They would only get a GRC after a few years of living in their acquired gender, having a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and likely taking some strong hormone drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
While in Scotland you can sit at home and do nothing for 3 months and hey presto you are now a woman because you say you are.
See the issue?
You seem quick to defend the SG, but why do you personally support allowing convicted sex offenders to get a GRC with no checks?
I am against it because these people have been convicted of some terrible crimes often involving lying and manipulation, so even if they think they will get the tiniest of advantage over a potential victim they will exploit that.
Or maybe you don't support it?
I don't think I've ever said I support or don't support it as I suppose I'm one of those who don't see it as a pressing issue. This thread has been very informative though.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Lots of things to be taken into consideration and I can understand both sides have their views, and think that they're correct.
Sometimes the facts do get skewed with all the noise around though.
Fulham v Spurs next. See ya. 👍
A male Edinburgh prisoner called Albert Cabellero who abducted and raped his care worker, has asked to be called Claire and wants transferred to a female prison before being released.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news...590?int_source
Something that they could have done anyway under already existing laws across the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
I used to work with him a really nasty person.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Well, nothing can be done under the new law, because it didn't make it into law.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
I'm just glad that the GRRB was blocked, because any law that makes it easier to Gender Self-ID gives greater scope for predators, it really would have been like a scene out of, the Silence of the Lambs, if a nasty man like Albert Cabellero ever entered a female only space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betty Boop
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...carer-29015322
Pointing this out tends to get shot down by supporters of the bill who argue women are unlikely to be put in danger. But why create such a potential problem in the first place by removing all safeguards around obtaining a GRC?Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
I'm not sure if removing the the safeguards makes it a critical social justice policy, a woke policy or identity politics, so I just think of it as the Alice in Wonderland GRRB, because thinking that a policy that is open to everyone would only be applied for by genuine people who are struggling with gender dysphoria is removed from reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Society is divided into categories based on sex for a reason, namely the protection of women and children, saying that these categories don't matter is like saying woman and children's single sex protection is not important. For the majority of people it is which is why the safeguards need to be kept in place.
My point is, the new law wouldn't allow people like that to do anything that they couldn't already do under currently enforced legislation across the UK as a whole. Which pretty much rubbishes the Tory excuses for blocking the bill, which would explain why none of them are willing to appear in front of the equalities committee to justify the measures taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
You sure about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
The legislation fundamentally changed how people get the certificate. How can you say it changes nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Rapist guilty of attacking women before gender change - BBC News
Will this transgender rapist go to a women's prison? And, reading between the lines, was the decision to start the process of gender re-assignment made with a view to avoiding a men's prison?
The legislation means people can get it in less time and at a younger age. It doesn't grant special privileges that allow people to commit illegal acts.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I think that's a fair point. It would only take one assault from a sexual predator who has taken advantage of the new safeguard-free legislation for its folly to be exposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is arguing that it does. It does, however, make it vastly more straightforward for somebody who would wish to use it for nefarious purposes to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
What I don't get in this discussion is what difference does letting trans people get the 'correct' paperwork that bit easier and more aligned to WHO guidelines actually make.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
What's the specific issue?
As it stands, if I wanted to stick on a dress and go into the womens toilets I could do that bit of paper or not.
Which takes us back to the argument of why anybody would even bother to do so. Getting a certificate just so they can legally access a place in order to do something illegal anyway. It doesn't make any sense, which is why similar legislation that has been enforced in other countries hasn't led to any notable increase in such instances.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
The Spanish Government put a very similar law into force on the same day the Scottish Parliament attempted to do so, minus all of the media hyperbole. But then again, Spain isn't a devolved parliament caught up in a constitutional game with a more powerful government looking to create distractions from their own corruption.
Correct. The argument that it makes it "easier" to do this is nonsensical. Nobody is standing outside the toilet door asking people to provide their gender ID certificates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
How is a self ID process with unenforceable penalties and vague criteria the same as two year process which required medical engagement? Why do care so little for the views of people raising concerns?Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Defend the SG at all costs. Even if you don't have an opinion it seems, as long as the SG aren't seen in a bad light.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
What "unenforceable penalties"? Nothing about the GRC itself has changed. What this legislation does change is how they can be obtained. But the same laws would still apply to people with GRCs as they have done previously. Nothing in that regard has changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
As opposed to attacking the SG at all costs and forever viewing them in a bad light? Even if it means beating down on minority groups with zero justification for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
They guy at the door would stop you to check all your paperwork was in order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
You might get done for breach of the peace (or worse), depending on what you did there, or the reaction of any occupants. But that's nothing to do with the GRA or the GRRA.
You wouldn't be a legal woman. And what would be your purpose in doing so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
I think it's easy for men to underestimate the importance of female-only spaces to women as a source of safety and comfort. My wife, for example, recalls being followed in town by a creepy bloke when she was a teenager and she took refuge in the women's changing rooms in a department store until he had gone. It may not be a protected space in the sense that you're stopped at the door and asked for ID, but we're not talking extremes here when it comes to sexual predators. Plenty of these sort of blokes don't take their creepiness beyond voyeurism and will in the vast majority of cases not actually follow a woman into a female changing room. However, if all that's required under the bill is a claim that you've lived as a woman for a couple of months to grant you access to these changing rooms then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that such lax requirements will be exploited. And you certainly wouldn't need to 'stick on a dress' to do so...
Well if they're not going to go to the trouble of sticking on a dress, then why would they go to the trouble of waiting 2 months to get a certificate, that nobody is going to ask them for anyway, when approaching the female space?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I'm sorry, but these "concerns" are completely irrational and ignore how things really work in practice. The right wing hyperbole in the media has a lot to answer for. But then again, they've been getting away with it throughout history whenever it's came to beating down on minority groups.
I am not sure how times this needs said, I don't have a problem with trans people. I have a problem with convicted sex offenders who can change gender without any checks. I also have a problem with a 16yr olds going on a life altering path after potentially literally sitting in their bedroom for a few months and then deciding they are a woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
How does allowing a convicted sex offender a GRC with no checks advance Trans rights? Can you explain that one to me?
There are checks.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Not quite. If I walk into a women's changing room and get my kit off I could well be done for breach or indecent exposure. If I have certificate and do exactly the same would there be any law broken?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod